### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-11065 Summary Calendar

JEFFERY SCOTT BONNEVILLE, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. DAVID BASSE, Unit Health Authorit y ; KELLE WALLACE, FHA; CHARLES R. MCDUFFIE, Warden, Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court f or the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:12-CV-200

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jeffery Scott Bonneville, Texas prisoner # 1 244488, proceeding pro se and in f orma pauperis (IFP), appeals the dismissal of his 4 2 U.S.C. § 1 983 complaint. Bonneville argues that the defendants were deliber ately indifferent to his medical needs and that he should be paid for the work he performs in prison. The d i s t rict court dismissed Bonneville’s complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a c laim on which relief could b e granted. See 42 U.S.C. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D J uly22, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-11065 Document: 00512316387 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2013No. 12-11065

§ 1 997e(c)(1); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A. Acc o r d i n gl y , we r eview the decision de novo. Samford v . Dretke , 562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th C ir. 2009). A claim may be dismissed for f ailure to state a c laim upon which relief can be granted if, assuming all well-pleaded f a c t s a r e true, the plaintiff has not stated “enough facts t o state a claim to relief that is p lausible on its face.” In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig ., 4 95 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Bonneville asserts the following claims concerning Dr. Basse. The doctor ordered Bonneville to perform back e xercises and redu c e d t h e dosage of ibuprofen that Bonneville had been taking for his back pai n . D r . B asse never examined Bonneville’s bac k a n d r elied on an x-ray from 2007 t o evaluate his condition. The prescribed exercises worsened the back pain. Additionally, Dr. Basse decided to treat B onneville’s knee pain with 600 milligrams of ibuprofen rather than a knee brace or a walking aid. After falling down, Bonneville was denied immediate medical treatment. Bonneville m ust walk a long distance to reach the pill window and must wait in line for a lon g time to obtain his medication. The record shows that Bonneville received treatment for his painful conditions. The above a ssertio n s c o nc e rni n g D r . B a sse indicate only Bonneville’s disagreement with the prescribed treatment; these assertions are not sufficient to establish that Dr. Basse acted with delib e r ate i ndifference to Bonneville’s serious medical needs. See Gobert v. Caldwell , 463 F.3d 3 39, 346 (5th Cir. 2006). Even if these facts show tha t D r. Basse’s treatment w as negligent, negligent medical care does not constitute a valid §1983 claim. See id

. Additionally, Bonneville contends that Ke ll e W all ac e i s li able under § 1983 because a causal connection existed between h e r f ailure to favorably resolve his grievances and Dr. Basse’s deliberate indifferenc e . Wallace cannot be held liable under § 1983 in the absence of a constitutional violation. See T hompkins v. Belt , 828 F.2d 298, 303-04 ( 5th C ir. 1987). A prisoner does n ot have a constitutionally
2 Case: 12-11065 Document: 00512316387 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2013No. 12-11065

protected liberty i nterest i n having “ grievances resolv e d t o his satisfaction.” Geiger v. Jowers , 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005). In his work-related c laim, B onneville argues that he cannot purchase his medications from the c ommissary because he is not being paid to work in prison. Compelling a n inmate to work without p ay does not violate the Constitution

even if the inmate i s not s pecifically s entenced to h ard labor. Ali v . Johnson , 259 F.3d 3 17, 318 (5th Cir. 2001). Bonneville admitted that he receives medication for pain, just not in the manner and quantity that he had previously. Because B onneville has failed to brief his claims against Charles Wallace, he has abandoned them. See Hughes v. Johnson , 191 F.3d 607, 6 13 (5th Cir. 1999); Yohey v. Collins , 985 F .2d 222, 224-25 (5th C ir . 1993). B onneville’s claims regarding ( 1) Dr. Basse’s failure to renew other prescription medications; (2) Dr. Basse’s failure to treat his infected t oenail; (3) the State’s f ailure to award good time credits; and (4) the denial of his right to h umane conditions of confinement

are raised for the first time on appeal a nd are factual in nature; th erefore, we d o not consider them. See Leverette v . Louisville Ladder Co. , 1 83 F.3d 3 39, 342 (5th Cir. 1999) (stating that this court will not allow a party t o raise a claim for the first time on appeal). Bonneville’s appeal is without arguable mer i t a n d, therefore, frivolous. See H oward v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the appeal i s d i s missed as f

rivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. In light of the foregoing and because Bonneville has n ot shown the existence of exceptiona l c i r cumstances warranting the appointment o f counsel, his motion i s denied. See Ulmer v. Chancellor , 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982). The district court’s dismissal of Bonneville’s comp l aint as frivolous and this court’s dismissal of his appeal as frivolous c o unt as two strikes for purposes

o f § 1915(g). See Adepegba v . Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th C i r . 1 9 9 6 )

. Bonn e vi l l e i s hereby cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes he will no longer be allowed to proceed IFP i n any c ivil action or appeal f iled while he is
3 Case: 12-11065 Document: 00512316387 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/22/2013No. 12-11065

incarcerated or detained in any facility u nless he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” § 1915(g). A P PEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR T HE APPOINTMENT O F COUNSEL DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

4 Case: 12-11065 Document: 00512316387 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/22/2013